The Tomatometer rating – based on the published opinions of hundreds of film and
television critics – is a trusted measurement of movie and TV programming quality
for millions of moviegoers. It represents the percentage of professional critic reviews
that are positive for a given film or television show.
From the Critics
From RT Users Like You!
The Tomatometer is 60% or higher.
The Tomatometer is 59% or lower.
The Tomatometer is 75% or higher, with 40 reviews (movies) or 20 reviews (TV). At least 5 reviews from Top Critics.
Percentage of users who rate a movie or TV show positively.
Remembering nothing of the first film beyond not thinking much of it, giving 'Dumb and Dumber To' a clean slate. And I came to the same conclusion after seeing the sequel, a film that has some moments but come very few and far between. it's as with most comedy sequels more of the same.
Reprising their roles from the first movie 'Jim Carry' and 'Jeff Daniels' play 'Lloyd' and 'Harry' a pair of morons who have somehow not been killed by their own stupidity. After hearing 'Harry' has a daughter they go in search of her - a trip that involves a professor, death and their iconic dog car. It's essentially a road trip movie with the usual close calls for the two idiots. As ever the story is less important than it the comedy although that's not all that great either. But it does get big points for effort, the film whizzes along at a nice pace and throws many many gags at you - a sure-fire way to get at least get some laughs.
The other thing that this film has in its favour is the energy from 'Jim Carry' and 'Jeff Daniels'. Along with the sheer amount of jokes it keeps things interesting, even when the story gets confusing at the end and tries to change things by throwing a misunderstanding in that makes no sense. Their enthusiasm is vital to this film.
That's really all I can say, it's stupid (as expected) and only occasionally shows sparks of life - but thankfully it's never boring thanks to a pacing that suites the ride. Unless you're really into the slapstick comedy and find being pushed in a bush really funny I wouldn't watch it.
Is this the end of this series? I doubt it, the fact it got not one but two sequels surprised me. Not that I think they're bad films I actually have a small soft spot for them - They aren't great but I tend to have a decent time with them. And this is no different, while not really adding anything, anything at all to the formula 'Secret Of The Tomb' is solid.
As ever there's something afoot at the museum, with the tablet loosing power and the exhibits loosing control of themselves they travel to the British museum to try and figure it all out. Generally things are similar to the first two, but I expected that to be honest. It introduces a couple of new characters one of which bares a striking resemblance to 'Larry' (Ben Stiller) - the rest are in the British museum. With 'Lancelot', a triceratops and Ahkmenrah's parents. Other than 'Lancelot' the new characters don't offer anything new. There's also a new security guard 'Tilly' (rebel Wilson) - who Is seemingly being set-up to be the main character should the series continue.
One thing this one suffers from more than the other two is there is no real sense of threat, it introduces a villain towards the end but it seems out of character to me. There's still enough humour, to keep me interested throughout, even if at times the films dips slightly. It's mostly fairly steady if unspectacular in its execution, attempts of emotion never work in this series and it's no different here - especially when we know all the characters are literally just waxworks.
Even so, It has its moments 'Ben Stiller' is a good lead and due to the amount of jokes enough of them hit just like the previous two. 'Lancelot' is the only inclusion to add a little bit more variety. As far as trilogies go you can do much worse, adequate is how I describe this series and will continue to. Solid, special effects, solid acting and solid jokes - so I'm saying it's solid.
This will be short, mainly because a review is essentially pointless. 'Under The Skin' is possibly the most divisive movie Iv'e ever come across. It's central theme (I think) is what it means to be human all through the lens of someone who is not. You're either going to like it or hate it, it's certainly that kind of movie.
There's very little dialogue, particularly in the second half. Large long sequences of silence, ambiguity in it's story, strange visuals and an arresting soundtrack. But I loved it, that's all that I can say. Some may see it has trying to hard to be arty, pretentious and terrible. And they're right I can't argue to someone who doesn't like it. It's not everyone - a truer statement has never been said.
If you want to see a film that comes with answers steer clear. So Recommending it hard to do, but I will just to see the reaction.
I hate Christmas films. A nice way to open it also begs the question "Why the hell did you bother watching this then?!" (the exclamation is vital here I feel). Well the answer is despite my dislike of Christmas films I'm all about giving them a chance - if, if and only if I see some good press towards it. Yeah I know reviews don't mean anything to the individual - that's something I wholeheartedly subscribe too. But the glimmer of hope that'll I enjoy is always there indeed the same can be said of; Slashers, Found Footage and Musicals. none of these I like as a genre but I'll give them a chance (and with 'My Bloody Valentine, Troll Hunter and The Nightmare Before Christmas as proof that there's some out there for me).
I say all that because it need to be taken into account with my scoring, as by film standards this was watchable, ok but by my separate Christmas films standards it was good. Arbitrary I know but that's how I feel.
Anyway, 'Get Santa' has more to it than the trailer suggest, they suggest a typical Christmas film - full of farting Reindeer and overly sweet sentiment. And while it contains those things and more the rest of it is actually quite enjoyable. It follows a father and son team (the atypical dead beat dad relationship) as they try and 'Get Santa' out of jail and save Christmas. Not all too different from previous save Christmas movies but this differentiates itself slightly with it's surprisingly witty script and a great performance from 'Jim Broadbent' as the not all there 'Santa'. it involves jail break, some Christmas hokyness and a Dad who sways between believing 'Santa' and not. There's a familiar UK cast with 'Raph Spall', 'Warwick Davis' and 'Stephen Graham'.
I think the thing I actually liked the most about the film was some of the strangely inventive ways it shows with 'Santa' - a giant mailbox that the letters to Santa go into for one. Which also fly towards Santa like a magnet. it become a mini-mystery adventure as the father-son duo go around the country looking for the reindeer, the sleigh and a way to the North Pole. Moving the story forward at a nice pace, the humour tending to be the thing that kept me interested, It's not brilliant but certainly has enough - a surprising amount if you ask me.
As far as Christmas films go 'Get Santa' is certainly one of the better ones, containing plenty of jokes and a great performance from 'Jim Broadbent' as the clueless 'Santa'. Everything else is serviceable, even if the story isn't the worst Christmas spirit offender it has too much of it for my liking (yes I know it would do). It ends a bit abruptly too and the principle villains seems to be attempting a '101 Dalmatians' type approach but it doesn't work. Still Iv'e spent worst times at the cinema and if in the future it was on TV and I had nothing to do I'd certainly watch it again
Bringing another 'Tolkein' trilogy to an end 'Peter Jackson' has tackled the world of Mordor once again. It was never going to get the plaudits the 'Lord Of The Rings' got (not only because of the previous two films quality) even before a sing scene was seen by the general public It would have been nigh on impossible to reach the same acclaim twice. Still he gave it a good go and ended on a good note if not spectacular.
Taking off where the 'Desolation of Smaug' ended, 'Smaug' has finally awoken from his slumber in the mountains and wreaks havoc on the nearby sea town. While the 'Dwarves' await it's death so they can reclaim their land back. The first issue the film runs into is after spoiler - Smaug's demise. Is that there is no story left. The point of the adventure was to claim back their home and while there are moments of character development there's nothing really driving he film forward. And that's the films biggest weakness. Character are the life blood of any film but beyond the corruption of the gold on 'Thorin' (Ironic given the film's budget) it treads water. Everything's in one spot, the title describes exactly what this film is (and its best parts) a huge battle between - well what I counted as 4 but who's counting.
Where 'LOTR' trilogy made full use of its running time none of the Hobbit films have. Smaug's screen-time is criminally short and could have easily been put on the end of the last film or at least extended. The best parts of teh entire run of films is gone within 20 minutes - and with a whimper at that. Don't get me wrong there's plenty to like but this out of all the films feels like the biggest missed opportunity, It's saviour being an excellent clash between the armies - 'Peter' still has a great eye for large scale wars. Swooping cameras and energetic action sequences are aplenty in the second half of the film. This is certainly a film of two halves a first lacklustre one and an excellent second.
The one thing missing from the large scale battle was a real villain an Orc commander feels very underwhelming - even if he's a tough one. For all my complaints though the battle between him and 'Thorin' is a good one complete with ice, bats and a 'Legolas' with a flurry of arrows. Someone who gets very little screen time (the same can be said for 'Gandalf' although more pointless than anything). It makes sense to minimize them given they're not the focus but the film would have been no different without them (mainly 'Gandalf'). The only story beat I pointed to earlier is an interesting one, with the wealth clouding his vision and is the only interesting aspect from the first half of the film - it's just a shame it isn't dealt with in a natural manner (it comes off as forced to me).
You'll notice I complained aaaaa lot but that's only down to my wanting this to be as good as the 'LOTR' trilogy and not to be a slog. Unfortunately it was , it's definitely more good than bad but it's potential will be forever an annoyance. Starting by killing off the biggest reason to watch the 'Hobbit' trilogy in the first 20 minutes was a big disappointment and frankly not needed. Sure there's following the book but this had already been extended beyond belief and cutting some of the aftermath of 'Smaug' to include a little more 'Smaug' would have helped a lifeless first half. Luckily the second half brings it all back in rousing fashion, with an epic battle on the fields and on the frozen mountains. A worthy if not spectacular end to a solid trilogy.